originalist future in that argument. the bribery theory being put forward is as flawed until 18th sear century as it is in this century. the statement made by one of my esteemed colleagues was that bribery wasn't really defined until much later. there is no bribery statute and that is certainly true, but it obviously had a meeting. bribery was not this overarching concept that chairman schiff indicated. quite to the contrary, the original standard was trae son and bribery. that led mason to object that it was too narrow. if bribery could include any time you did anything for personal interest instead of public interest, if you have this overarching definition, that exchange would have been completely useless. the framers didn't disagree with mason's view.